🔗 Share this article

A familiar idea permeates many of 2025's popular films. This notion that stretches far back to the era of silent film comedy. In the new *Superman* film, the antagonist is a envious, ruthless billionaire using his enormous resources to defame Earth's greatest hero while orchestrating world events for his own profit. In *Jurassic World: Rebirth*, the bad guy is a privileged biotech mogul squandering tens of millions to cast the heroes into a dinosaur-packed arena to boost his wealth. In *Zootopia 2*, the wrongdoers are a clan of super-wealthy lynxes who stole a altruistic inventor's beneficial creation and set her up for murder, solely for their dynasty's gain.

A Lineage of On-Screen Elite Villainy

In the remake of *The Running Man*, a wealthy media magnate plays a affluent bad guy running a TV network that earns a fortune by exploiting and murdering people enduring desperate poverty, while employing digital impersonations and a sophisticated media apparatus to label them as avaricious, indolent, terrifying criminals. The Oz-based film *Wicked* doesn’t emphasize economic inequality as overtly, but its antagonists reside in conspicuous opulence while exploiting and abusing Oz's poorest citizens, forcing them into unemployment and into bondage. The Chinese animated hit *Ne Zha 2*, the year's top film, pits the tough inhabitants of a struggling farm town against haughty aristocrats who inhabit extravagant gleaming towers in the sky. Even, the lighthearted humorous remake *The Naked Gun* centers on a billionaire's plot to trigger planetary doom — to make money, naturally.

There is little particularly surprising in a string of movies presupposing that rich people have disproportionate control, lack ethics or compassion, and a insatiable, privileged desire for increased fortune. "Rich people are villains and plucky heroes are heroes" as a concept stretches back to the dawn of cinema, with early comedies pitting his perpetually impoverished beloved underdog against tycoons, authority figures, and clueless rich men. Beginning with the Mickey Rooney/Judy Garland "Let’s put on a show" movies from that era to the 1980s dance movies that refreshed the exact same bit for the era of the greedy, harmful Silicon Valley antagonist, the complete chronicle of cinema is replete with "eat the rich" stories, which presume that riches is at odds with basic human values, and celebrate the defusing, downfall, and sometimes destruction of the rich and powerful.

The Release That Changes Nothing

However, inexplicably, we never actually consuming the elite. Whenever lawmakers react to a tragic gun violence event by blaming violent video games, I roll my eyes, because if people actually were that easily influenced — if repeated viewing to an idea via media was enough to cause it to infiltrate the public consciousness — certainly American society wouldn’t still revere billionaires. And yet the news reveals every single day that a frightening percentage of Americans subconsciously equate riches with competence and importance, even after one hundred years of cinema's biggest movies promoting a contradictory message.

If anything, it appears that the never-ending cycle of class-conscious storylines in American cinema has given us a relief valve that impedes meaningful change. Offered a regular dose of mostly happily-ever-after stories where the hero prevails, while the billionaires are neutralized and shamed, everyone can finish the film satisfied about good conquering evil. These films are like moral fairy tales, implying that the system works, and that resourceful individuals will identify any malicious actors among the mostly industrious, moral, worthy wealthy who succeeded on their own merit.

A More Pointed Message in 2025

Although 2025's movies do not break new ground in that sense, they do follow some recent trends among class warfare stories: They’re getting more enraged, more pointed, more targeted, and seemingly more violent. It is no longer satisfactory in the current era to see rich people learn a useful lesson in empathy, like in 1941's *Sullivan's Travels*, or lose their money to the people they subjugated, like in 1983's *Trading Places*. In 2025, selfish, cruel rich individuals were killed by fantastical monsters (*Death of a Unicorn*) and devoured by a colossal prehistoric creature (*Jurassic World: Rebirth*). They were blown up on a alien world (*Mickey 17*) and shot in the face point blank on live TV (*The Running Man*). They were murdered with a corkscrew (*Companion*) and assaulted fatally by an rising rival (*Him*).

"Almost none of 2025’s extremely affluent villains get the driven away in cuffs finale, likely due to it’s become so clear that rich people function with a separate justice system, and are very likely to buy their way out."

The "off to face justice" outcome isn’t cathartic anymore. Conversely, these villains are apt to meet their end at the final act of their movies, often in notably brutal, poetic ways.

Significant Exclusions

Some films diverge, certainly. Superman's arch-nemesis in *Superman* is simply disgraced, revealed, and dispatched to prison. Evil mastermind Julian Dillinger in *Tron: Ares* winds up confined to the digital realm, teasing that he is being saved for possible sequels. Korda in Wes Anderson's *The Phoenician Scheme* is stripped of all his money and is transformed as a person. The antagonist family members in *Zootopia 2* are exposed as culprits, but they don’t meet|avoid